.
The FPV (kamikaze drone) threat is by now well-known to those who paid much attention to what's going on in the Russo-Ukrianian War. Yet, there's a mystery that this war cannot tell us anything about:
What if there was a proper breakthrough and a proper exploitation of the same. Mounted forces roam deep and quickly, expoiting that they are not opposed properly. Would the FPV threat be iminished in such a situation, meaning that such exploitation forces need no great C-UAS defences? Or would the movement (dominantly along roads) create turkey shoot conditions for whatever FPV teams are in the area? Just let one drone rise to spot movements, then the turkey shoot begins?
Properly-planned standoff ECM support would rather not be available, after all.
And suppose it's neither extreme, but the FPVs still cause much damage; is the exploitation drive still 'worth it'? Imagine a FPV unit doing one high value target kill per day during static trench warfare conditions, but ten per day during a four-day mobile phase being on the defender side. The FPV unit's lethality would be way up during the enemy's offenisve, but the harm it does might seem like acceptable losses if the breakthrough exploitation bags many prisoners of war, captures much material and conquers a city or two.
The pychological element may be decisive. A FPV unit may run in panic just as any other unit. Or maybe it doesn't - who knows? I suppose nobody, so we won't know until ther eis acutally mobile warfare again. More mobile than the Kharkiv offensive (which wa skinda slow) and more mobile than the Kursk offensive '24 (same).
S O
.
I assume it will be similar to dealing with other systems, sure there will be losses during the maneuver phase after a breakthrough but I think the casualties per unit of territory captured would drop significantly as the static line breaks down and everyone starts moving positions, both attacker and defender. To make maneuver impossible FPV units would have to be employed en masse and in great depth, which won't happen. It'll be the same as with systems like Javelin or Spike, there would be little movement if you have experienced guys with those systems behind every bush even 50 km behind initial line of contact but that won't happen.
ReplyDeleteThat predicates that FPV operators are reasonably close to the front though. If you have more robust com lines in the rear, perhaps even with functioning landlines, the operators could be safely 200 km away, safe from hostile maneuver units for a while and all you need are a few vehicles constantly deploying FPVs to be controlled from afar.
Though numbers again should favour the attacker, FPV drones may be cheap but there aren't infinite numbers at every position of the front. Especially not just two or three years into the future, as commercial drones should stop being useful in the face of improving and mobile ecm, microwave weapons, etc.
Then after that we'll see these systems soon no longer really need an operator I suppose and who knows where that leads.
Quadcopters don't risk exposing the operators to direct fire, perform their own recon, and have a 10x longer range, which makes finding their operators a geometrically harder problem.
ReplyDeleteIt resembles a world wars era carrier versus battleship scenario.
FPV units are not so mobile as one would expect. In the current war in the ukraine FPV units several times had problems in reacting fast enough on enemy movements if they are not in the area. So they need some time to create effects. Also the range of small quadrocopter style FPV is not that great.
ReplyDeleteThis will inevitable lead to two solutions: 1. FPV drone units will become much more mobile in the future. There are several options for this, including transport and very fast concentrations with helicopters. 2. the range and loitering time of such drones will increase, so they can attack over much longer distances.
This both developements will make the explotation of an breakthrough very difficult. And the troops which will try such an maneuvre must have very strong air defence with them. As this will reduce their other capabilities i see no other solution than to use the very same systems (machine cannons, small cheap rockets, own drone hunting ucav swarms) for air defence and at the same time for ground attack. So the weapons of such units must be all of dual use.
Let's do math: three men, a van, and 40 quadcopters in the back. It takes 5 minutes to launch a fleet of 20. With $200/part commercial EO cameras & the Identify standard from the Johnson criteria, this fleet can search a 60 square km area for car sized objects in 18 minutes.
ReplyDeleteThe objects you're looking for
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/yzadnj/this_is_how_camouflage_looks_irl_on_leopard_2s/
And the psychological element that devalued anti-tank firepower in WW2 a lot are the main issues.
What can be done isn't the same as what will be done.
What can be realistically done is far less favorable for the tanks. This is an unrealistically low-end force with reservists using the lowest quality commercial equipment and isolated from radios, comrades, infrastructure and military support, to set the limits of expectations.
DeleteYes, but readiness for battle is the big unknown factor.
DeleteA whole French tank division was overrun in a night in May 1940. Realistically, it could have defeated the attacking Germans.
Readiness and especially morale are huge factors during a breakthrough exploitation, thus I think there's a mystery.
@X10: Let´s do math. The troops that exploit the breakthrough here has two such vans per enemy van loaded with 80 anti ucav drones. So for every of your 40 drones they can launch 2 drone hunters. And therefore none of your drones can scan anything.
DeleteThe emotional tinge of these responses should indicate the self-conscious untenability of an antique armored breakthrough. If you're comparing your best case to their worst (and still finding it a stretch) or saying but what about my X+1! you know you're obsolete.
DeleteConsider morale: a reservist AT team with 2 Javelins or 40 Panzerfausts facing a mech bn knows they can't achieve much and will die trying. They have a radius of action defined by direct fire against superior units. They will belly crawl to a position the enemy will inevitably shoot with coax at a minimum. They cannot outmaneuver armor.
The drone team knows they are behind multiple terrain features with offset GCS antennae, can hide easily, and expect to strike multiple companies of enemy forces in any direction. They have a good chance of survival, high level of initiative, and high impact. They have a tremendous psychological advantage relative to RPGs or ATGM teams - or the mech opfor, who can expect to take fire unable to use their main weapons to hit back.
A breakthrough demands speed, survivability, and maneuverability. Trying to break through a drone opfor with tanks is like American WW2 scouts driving jeeps into GPMGs. Land vehicles will need drone cover established before any land movement.
That drone cover is the new form of the breakthrough. It is faster, more survivable, and more maneuverable than the tank. It goes deeper too.